shiro-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Kalle Korhonen <kalle.o.korho...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Ini config: Rename [main] section to [beans] ?
Date Sun, 09 May 2010 03:29:56 GMT
I would agree with Erik. Bean just doesn't exist in Shiro vocabulary
so why introduce it now. "main" may or may not be a weak choice but
that's what it's been and we don't know now any better what the future
holds, so I'd be inclined to just leave it as "main".

Kalle


On Sat, May 8, 2010 at 8:19 PM, Les Hazlewood <lhazlewood@apache.org> wrote:
> Ah, interesting Erik - that could work too.  Thanks for the feedback!
>
> If anyone else wants to offer feedback, please do so soon - I hope to
> wrap this up as soon as possible to be code complete for 1.0 by Monday
> at the latest.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Les
>
> On Sat, May 8, 2010 at 8:02 PM, Erik Beeson <erik.beeson@gmail.com> wrote:
>> I understand what you're saying, but "beans" doesn't seem very meaningful in
>> the context of Shiro. I think "config" (which would be a bit redundant) or
>> "setup" might make more sense. Or leave it "main" and have a new global
>> options section be called "options" or "settings" or something?
>>
>> In the end, I don't think it matters much. We'll use whatever you do :)
>>
>> --Erik
>>
>>
>> On Sat, May 8, 2010 at 10:44 PM, Les Hazlewood <lhazlewood@apache.org>wrote:
>>
>>> Hi Juan,
>>>
>>> I think you might have missed my point:
>>>
>>> The [main] section today IS the same thing as a Spring-style
>>> configuration - it just uses INI instead of XML.  It configures
>>> JavaBeans and builds object graphs and nothing else.  That's why I'd
>>> like to change the name to [beans] - so the section name correctly
>>> reflects the current behavior.
>>>
>>> I also wanted to change the name so that if we ever decided to bring
>>> back the [main] section, it could be used for things other than
>>> beans-style configuration.  You can't mix them both in the same
>>> section.
>>>
>>> Does that make sense?
>>>
>>> Les
>>>
>>> On Sat, May 8, 2010 at 7:06 PM, Juan Chung <jiayanchung@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> > [beans] is a more general name, it likes spring-style configuration. so
>>> > it cannot clearly express this section's function in Shiro.
>>> >
>>> > but [main] is a more meaningful name for Shiro, it tells the end-user it
>>> > lies in the Core of Shiro, without it Shiro will not be able to work.
>>> >
>>> > I think [main] is a better name than [beans] in Shiro.
>>> >
>>> > On 2010-5-9 7:27, Les Hazlewood wrote:
>>> >>
>>> >> The [main] section now exists for the sole purpose of java-beans-style
>>> >> creation, configuration, and object graph assembly.
>>> >>
>>> >> Because of this, I'm thinking the [main] section should be renamed to
>>> >> [beans] to indicate this.  The idea is that it is easily conceivable
>>> >> that we'll need a [main] section at some time for framework-wide
>>> >> directives that might not be able to be represented as a bean/property
>>> >> configuration line.
>>> >>
>>> >> Thoughts?
>>> >>
>>> >> Les
>>> >>
>>> >
>>> >
>>>
>>
>

Mime
View raw message